In a case in which appellant was convicted of second-degree burglary of a car (§ 495) and vandalism of property (§ 594, subd. (a)), the Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding restitution for lost wages since that loss was not a reasonably foreseeable result of appellant’s crime. In particular, the Court found that the victim’s reaction to her car’s window being smashed was an “extraordinary and abnormal occurrence” that was a superseding cause to her loss of wages.
^